Of course, that’s a load of bunk, but no one said perceptions had to be right.

And let’s face it, politics and games combine more often than not, and that is only going to continue as they mature into a respectable art form (with art comes controversy). On the other hand, if you’re a site that reports nothing but videogame news, and you have a story on your site that has nothing to do with gaming (such as this one [http://www.gamepolitics.com/2008/09/03/republican-vp-choice-sarah-palin-tried-ban-books] on GamePolitics), then I’d say you should hold back a little. It’s not that they shouldn’t be allowed to talk about politics; it’s just that seeing something completely unrelated to gaming (although it could be argued that book burning shares similar free speech issues as anti-videogame movements) is slightly odd.

For the video in question, I thought it was very original and witty, and of course it appealed to me as a lifelong gamer. For those who found it “juvenile”, well, they should probably welcome themselves to 2008.

If Bad Dudes taught us anything, it’s that there’s room for politics in games.

To speak to your second point: of course. This is the internet—serious, serious business—but it’s that sense of attack and victimization that, when reined, always leads to such interesting discussions! God bless the internet.

Now, with regard to your first assertion, which is the one I find most interesting, I absolutely agree. But I wonder why it is that we have such a low opinion of said journalist’s credibility. And I think you’ve hit upon what I really wanted to discuss inside of my original blog entry.

Granted, the reader may feel that political subject matter is outside of the writer’s usual sphere of discourse—we can’t all be MSNBC commentators, can we? But it is interesting that, to the average reader and gamer, said journalist would have less clout or credibility than Joe Blogger @ importantpoliticsblog dot com (if that domain really exists, I will scream). And that’s really too bad, isn’t it? For one, a games journalist is no less equipped to discuss politics than Joe Blogger, so it’s surprising that we are so quick to dismiss said journalist’s vantage and opinion. And FWIW as far as lefty punditry goes, Jared Rea is better equipped than most, regardless of their chosen employ.

It isn’t only that average games journalists are slighted and condescended to—and to be sure, they are, and a lot of hackneyed writing out there is largely to blame for that—but that they are slighted because their chosen sphere of criticism is videogames. And these journalists aren’t slighted by book critics and film critics; they’re denied credibility by other gamers. And what that tells me is that even gamers have a comparatively low opinion of the medium itself. After all, if the medium were higher-brow, wouldn’t we assign more credibility to the people who commit their lives to discussing it?

Never mind the fact that games journalists should see to it that they’re equipped to discuss politics in a meaningful way. Journalists should be able to discuss each and every work in its entire context. Games themselves are inherently political. The simplest games are, at their core, about competition, about invasion or upheaval or unrest. They are about war. And more complicated games may have a motive or agenda—it’s naive to think those can’t, and it’s condescending to not allow them that discussion.

I really appreciate your comment, and thanks—it’s given me a chance to really consider and talk about what I was only implying before.

edit: Oh great, it’s longer than the actual blog.

The other reason could be that people often feel attacked when people view things differently than they do.